What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.
It's really a matter of trauma induced cognitive dissonance. People have a mental block from being able to see any of that evidence, that really isn't refutable when you know what you're looking at.
What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.
It's really a matter of trauma induced cognitive dissonance. People have a mental block from being able to see any of that evidence, that really isn't refutable when you know what you're looking at.
That said, I agree, thanks for clarifying.